It was mentioned in a thread a week or so ago that a meme-off might be a fun thread and thought we should give it a try. Regular forum rules apply. No name calling (ie no memes calling NVers baby killers or memes calling PVers baby poisoners etc) but let's try not to take things TOO seriously :) I just think it might be fun to try to debate some of our points through memes. Infographics are Ok too.

Ok I'll start with just a general infographic to get started....

Edit: Found a better graph

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

I don't have a meme but I notice the conspicuous absence of pertussis from this one. I guess it doesn't look as good as the others: "In the US in 1952, 45,030 people contracted pertussis. In 2012, 48,277 people contracted pertussis." Sure, I suppose if they wanted to, they could pick the year with the highest reported cases--appears to be 1934--and put it on the meme and state, "Hey, we've gone from 265,269 to 48,277, woot," and then add some obscure unrelated stat. It looks super as a meme as long as you ignore those stats from 1981 when reported cases were just 1248.

Oh and it's a minor thing, but diphtheria is not spelled correctly in the meme. Doesn't mean much, but if the creators--Vaccine Nation--want to be authoritative and credible, getting little things like that right helps.

Mother to DD#1 s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2 nearly 10 years old; DS 6.5 years old Why are daughters protected but not sons?

I don't have a meme but I notice the conspicuous absence of pertussis from this one. I guess it doesn't look as good as the others: "In the US in 1952, 45,030 people contracted pertussis. In 2012, 48,277 people contracted pertussis." Sure, I suppose if they wanted to, they could pick the year with the highest reported cases--appears to be 1934--and put it on the meme and state, "Hey, we've gone from 265,269 to 48,277, woot," and then add some obscure unrelated stat. It looks super as a meme as long as you ignore those stats from 1981 when reported cases were just 1248.

Oh and it's a minor thing, but diphtheria is not spelled correctly in the meme. Doesn't mean much, but if the creators--Vaccine Nation--want to be authoritative and credible, getting little things like that right helps.

"In the US in 1952, 45,030 people contracted pertussis. In 2012, 48,277 people contracted pertussis."

Sure, but by 1952 the original Pertussis vaccine (DTP) had already been out for several years and was a much more effective vaccine than the one we use now. It had been out for over 30 years by 1981 which is why the number is so much lower. The population has also nearly doubled in the US from 1952 to now from around 150 million to over 300 million. So you aren't looking at stats using the same number of people. We all know that the current pertussis vaccine immunity wanes after about 5 years and isn't nearly as effective as the old one but it does still work. The fact that there were 5 times as many cases of pertussis in 1934 when the population was about 1/3 of what the population is now says a lot about the effectiveness of the vaccine in my opinion.

In keeping the spirit of the thread here's a graph

And a meme for funsies

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Fair enough, but then why isn't it in the meme? I mean, they could still put it in there and put an asterisk with *current vaccine not as effective or *population much higher now or does that somehow take away from their meme impact?

The argument re: effectiveness and population, sure, that's perhaps part of the picture (ie.the aP is deemed less effective, vaccine-induced immunity wanes earlier, and the population is larger now, so that's why the numbers are up). Suspected underreporting of pertussis cases in teens and adults, which I have seen reference to in the literature in the past, would also affect that reported cases stat. To what degree it would rise, I suppose it's debatable. Personally, I find the aP effectiveness argument perhaps elides the role of pathogen adaptation: not so much a case of the aP being "less than" than the bacterial evolution being more of a factor. Mooi and others have documented that only small changes are required by the bacteria to induce selective clonal sweeps. Van Gent et al (2012) detected four large shifts in the Dutch pertussis population between 1949-2010. Seeing as the Netherlands did not introduce the aP (ACV) until 2005, and van Gent et al (2012) can document the first shift in the genome to 12 years after the introduction of the WCV in 1953. So, what's the point? Well, the pertussis bacteria can adapt via small mutations, was already doing so in the 1960s, well before ACVs were in use in the Netherlands, and from this perspective, it's not so much that the ACV is so much less effective than the WCV--true--but the study illustrates that the bacteria was already beginning to adapt in novel ways subsequent to the initiation of the WCV vaccination program. I think what needs to be addressed in any argument of perceived effectiveness is how much vaccination programs are driving genetic change in the bacteria. And yes, there is ample material out there for both sides--a ten minute Scholar search nets both proponents and researchers who don't believe it's that relevant. Still, not too far a stretch, in the face of resistant bacteria and antibiotics as an example, to wonder about how the degree of intervention has influenced the situation as it stands today.

But... what is the gist of the message? It seems to be saying that it's silly to worry about measles when you don't' worry about these other things that are just about as common. (And yeah, I don't worry too much about being struck by lightning or eaten by a shark, but I'm still not going walking with an umbrella in a thunderstorm, and if someone yells shark when I'm swimming, you can bet I'll be out of the water in a flash.) Just because you are not quaking in your boots in fear of something doesn't mean it isn't sensible to take precautions.

It doesn't work a all when the numbers in it are so wrong though.

548,000 measles deaths in 2000 (and that was with about a 72% worldwide vaccination rate, so would have been much higher without the measles vaccine). 158,000 in 2011. That is a reduction of 71% for which expanded measles vaccine program are largely responsible. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved every year. That's quite some perspective.

548,000 measles deaths in 2000 (and that was with about a 72% worldwide vaccination rate, so would have been much higher without the measles vaccine). 158,000 in 2011. That is a reduction of 71% for which expanded measles vaccine program are largely responsible. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved every year. That's quite some perspective.

There is a difference between whether a vaccine is useful world wide and whether or not your particular child needs it.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

I do not doubt 1/10 are hospitalised in the Uk for measles. They get so few cases, they are probably fearful when they see it and do not know how to advice people to care for measles at home. People are in the hospital as a precautionary measure.

I do not doubt 1/10 are hospitalised in the Uk for measles. They get so few cases, they are probably fearful when they see it and do not know how to advice people to care for measles at home. People are in the hospital as a precautionary measure.

The fact that lots of people end up in hospital over measles does not automatically mean measles is dangerous. It could come down to fearfulness and lack of knowledge.

"60 years ago the fatality rate from measles on a per case was better than it is now in developed countries, and the hospital admissions were lower."

Not for the US. In the US during the 50s nearly everyone got measles. There certainly wasn't a lack of knowledge or an irrational fear about measles but the hospitalization rates were similar.

There were around 500,000 cases of measles a year in the US before the vaccine and 48,000 hospitalizations. 500,000/48,000 is roughly 10.4 which is on par to the rate of hospitalization now. There were also between 450-500 deaths a year in the US which also fits into the 1 out of a thousand death statistic we use today.

There were around 500,000 cases of measles a year in the US before the vaccine and 48,000 hospitalizations. 500,000/48,000 is roughly 10.4 which is on par to the rate of hospitalization now. There were also between 450-500 deaths a year in the US which also fits into the 1 out of a thousand death statistic we use today.

"Before 1954– In the pre-vaccine era, large epidemics occurred every 2 to 3 years. Almost everyone got measles. Every year in Canada, measles was responsible for 50 to75 deaths, 5000 hospitaladmissions....Since 1963– The number of cases has fallen by over 99% (from about 350,000 per year before 1963....)"

What I suspect is hapenning is a difference in how stats are counted. The USA has about 10 times the population of Canada - there is no way we had 350 000 cases a year, while the USA had 500 000 cases per year.

"Epidemiology of measles in the United States

Pre-elimination era

In the decade prior to the licensure of live measles vaccine in 1963, an average of 549,000 measles cases and 495 measles deaths were reported annually.[8] However, almost every American was affected by measles during their lifetime; it is estimated that 3-4 million measles cases occurred each year.[9-13]"

"Before 1954– In the pre-vaccine era, large epidemics occurred every 2 to 3 years. Almost everyone got measles. Every year in Canada, measles was responsible for 50 to75 deaths, 5000 hospitaladmissions....Since 1963– The number of cases has fallen by over 99% (from about 350,000 per year before 1963....)"

What I suspect is hapenning is a difference in how stats are counted. The USA has about 10 times the population of Canada - there is no way we had 350 000 cases a year, while the USA had 500 000 cases per year.

"Epidemiology of measles in the United States

Pre-elimination era

In the decade prior to the licensure of live measles vaccine in 1963, an average of 549,000 measles cases and 495 measles deaths were reported annually.[8] However, almost every American was affected by measles during their lifetime; it is estimated that 3-4 million measles cases occurred each year.[9-13]"

I'll have to look at some of the data when I have some more time. In any case, in the 1960's reporting wasn't very good. Lots of people died of lots of diseases that were never reported. So it is hard to know exactly what the death rate and hospitalization rate for measles really was.

But let's just assume your numbers are correct, although I think the death rate is higher than 1/7000. (Fairly recent data from the US from the early 90s that looked at hundreds of thousands of cases of measles puts the death rate much higher). BUT lets just put that aside for a bit. The population has roughly doubled since the 50s/60s so if we double those numbers you are still talking about a thousand children a year dying in the US from a preventable disease. A THOUSAND. And over 100,000 children hospitalized a year. By contrast, how many children do you think die from the MMR per year? The benefits of the vaccine clearly outweigh the risks.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Well, if 99.9 percent of engineers said the bridge was safe I still wouldn't cross it ;)

Good thing they would never say that ;)

Here's another one. To make the analogy more fair, let's say there was a lake that you HAD to cross, either by driving across a bridge or going across on a boat. Let's say the lake is 10 miles wide. Out of a group of 10,000 engineers 9,999 of them said that crossing the lake by driving over the bridge was safer than taking a boat across. One engineer out of the 10,000 says that going across on a boat is safer. Let's also say that out of those 9,999 that recommended driving across the bridge that 10%, or about 999 of them, work for "Big Bridge" and the rest do not. So 9,000 have no ties to big bridge. Which option do you take?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Here's another one. To make the analogy more fair, let's say there was a lake that you HAD to cross, either by driving across a bridge or going across on a boat. Let's say the lake is 10 miles wide. Out of a group of 10,000 engineers 9,999 of them said that crossing the lake by driving over the bridge was safer than taking a boat across. One engineer out of the 10,000 says that going across on a boat was safer. Let's also say that out of those 9,999 that recommended driving across the bridge 20 of them work for "Big Bridge" and the rest do not. Which option do you take?

Well, I don't think only 20 of them work for or have significant ties to Big Bridge. I imagine at least 1/2 of them do. It can be hard to quantify.

Now, if I had to cross a lake in the next couple of hours, and knowing nothing about engineering or boats, I would go with what the experts suggested. I do not have any time to research things and I have to get across. If I had time to research things and agreed with the 1 engineer versus the 999, I might go with the one (and I might end up swimming with the fishes - at least the fall will be shorter from a boat to a lake, and I might actually be able to swim 10 miles (not joking)….) . Consensus is not everything (although it is not "nothing" either)…I should get up a smoking meme from the 1940's on how doctors agree Camels are best…..

Vaccines are not a lake that needs to crossed. No one has to vaccinate (although depending on where and how you live the risks may differ) and you do have time to consider the choices.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

Well, I don't think only 20 of them work for or have significant ties to Big Bridge. I imagine at least 1/2 of them do. It can be hard to quantify.

Now, if I had to cross a lake in the next couple of hours, and knowing nothing about engineering or boats, I would go with what the experts suggested. I do not have any time to research things and I have to get across. If I had time to research things and agreed with the 1 engineer versus the 999, I might go with the one (and I might end up swimming with the fishes - at least the fall will be shorter from a boat to a lake, and I might actually be able to swim 10 miles (not joking)….) . Consensus is not everything (although it is not "nothing" either)…I should get up a smoking meme from the 1940's on how doctors agree Camels are best…..

Vaccines are not a lake that needs to crossed. No one has to vaccinate (although depending on where and how you live the risks may differ) and you do have time to consider the choices.

I changed the number before you submitted your reply to 10% of them.

Anyway, lets also say that you have never taken any classes on engineering or received any degrees in engineering and have no professional experience in the area of bridges.

I also think that not addressing the fact that many many doctors also have a financial incentive to be against vaccines in this analogy isn't really fair. So in the analogy the one engineer who recommends taking the boat also sells thousands of books on the dangers of bridges, and sells other books about the awesomeness of boats and has a store where he sells life jackets and other boating equipment.

"Vaccines are not a lake that needs to crossed. No one has to vaccinate"

The point in making this analogy about being made to cross the lake is because you have to make a choice of risk one way or the other. Not vaccinating is not not taking a risk. It's taking a different risk. In the original meme, a person could just look at that bridge and turn around and walk back home without taking any risk at all.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Sorry about the image quality. This is one of the things that got me on the road to being non-vax. My (now 17 year old) was given DPT as an infant. When I learned that DTaP existed, was safer, but that the province I then lived in was still giving DPT anyways, I was angry. I felt a trust had been broken.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...